A federal judge has intervened to halt a significant reduction in medical research funding proposed by the Trump administration, a move believed by many scientists to pose a threat to patient care and employment opportunities. The proposed policy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) aimed to withdraw substantial financial support previously allocated to cover indirect expenses associated with research on critical health issues such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. These funds have traditionally supported a wide range of activities, including clinical trials for new treatments and foundational lab research that drives medical breakthroughs.
Legal actions were initiated by a coalition of 22 states and various organizations representing the interests of universities, hospitals, and research institutions nationwide. These groups contended that the proposed cuts would result in “irreparable harm.” Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court in Boston, who had issued a temporary block on the cuts the previous month, granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday to extend the prohibition as the legal challenges continue.
The NIH, which is a major supporter of biomedical research in the U.S., distributed approximately $35 billion in grants last year. These funds are divided between “direct” costs, which cover researchers’ salaries and essential laboratory supplies, and “indirect” costs, which represent administrative and operational expenses necessary to support research activities.
While the Trump administration categorized these indirect costs as “overhead,” educational and medical institutions argue that they are essential. They include expenses such as electricity for complex equipment, hazardous waste management, compliance staff, and janitorial services. Traditionally, the government negotiated indirect cost rates with individual institutions. However, according to the proposed policy change, these costs would be limited to a uniform rate of 15%, a move intended to save the NIH $4 billion annually.
Dr. David J. Skorton, representing the Association of American Medical Colleges, expressed approval of the judge’s decision. In his statement, he asserted, “These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives,” emphasizing that the NIH-funded research provides benefits across the country.
The Department of Health and Human Services, responsible for overseeing the NIH, has not issued a response to requests for comment regarding the ruling.
